Plain Agnostics - Do you believe in God or not?

[Shadow Wolf]

Good point, but I think of belief or lack of thereof as forming a hypothesis before you test it. Scientists don't say "I don't know what is the cause so I have no prediction" otherwise they couldn't test anything.

But as of now, there is no way to test such a hypothesis. Death may produce results, but killing myself isn't something I'm willing to do to find out.
And, well, a hypothesis is formed before it's tested, and often a very weak hypothesis is formed as a shot in the dark just to shed some more light on a particular subject. But to my best knowledge a god hypothesis is not currently testable.

Exactly! That is why I lack belief in god. I have no knowledge of god, so why would I have a belief in god? Not having a belief in god= atheism.

As I pointed out with the example of extra terrestrial life, when you don't know you really do not know.

 

[bobhikes]

Actually the argument going on in here is quite different.
It is plain agnostics claiming that their belief is rooted in their knowledge.

Not at all other than the lack of a theist, I read it as confirming what I said. People argue over words all the time. You have to read between the lines understand the meaning.

What I see are various personal descriptions for Belief and Knowledge but what I read is everyone is saying the same thing only not understanding each other.

Indeed at times even what I write I have to understand what I was thinking that day to interpet it. It seems I have different definitions depending on the day.

 

[Koldo]

But I answered that I do not believe or disbelieve.

Now you did.
However, someone that does not believe in God is atheist, and there is no label for someone that does not disbelieve in God. Therefore, considering the latter does not necessarily contradict the atheist stance, for all intents and purposes you are an atheist.

 

[Koldo]

The world isn't black and white. It's not (deep voice) "believe or disbelieve, that is the whole of the law!" Withholding belief is a real and genuine position to take on the subject of a thing's existence, where existence is contingent.

This is rather interesting:

dis·be·lieve v. dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing, dis·be·lieves
v.tr. To refuse to believe in; reject.

v.intr. To withhold or reject belief.

dis

be·liev

er n.
dis

be·liev

ing·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

[Willamena]

Now you did.
However, someone that does not believe in God is atheist, and there is no label for someone that does not disbelieve in God. Therefore, considering the latter does not necessarily contradict the atheist stance, for all intents and purposes you are an atheist.

That's special pleading again. The agnostic has defined herself.

 

[Willamena]

This is rather interesting:

dis·be·lieve v. dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing, dis·be·lieves
v.tr. To refuse to believe in; reject.

v.intr. To withhold or reject belief.

dis

be·liev

er n.
dis

be·liev

ing·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Interesting, how? No offense, but a heritage dictionary provides common usage for a particular locality. That's its purpose.

 

[Willamena]

Good point, but I think of belief or lack of thereof as forming a hypothesis before you test it. Scientists don't say "I don't know what is the cause so I have no prediction" otherwise they couldn't test anything.

The problem with this is that it doesn't reflect how people use the word "believe." If someone asked you if you believe there is a fellow hiding outside your window, you could answer, "Yes, I have formulated that hypothesis," without actually telling anyone what you believe.

 

[Koldo]

That's special pleading again. The agnostic has defined herself.

In which manner did i use special pleading?
Also, how does the way a person define himself/herself is relevant if the definition is wrong/inaccurate?

EDIT: Shadow Wolf is agnostic. Period. The argument is that Shadow Wolf is also atheist.

 

[Koldo]

Interesting, how? No offense, but a heritage dictionary provides common usage for a particular locality. That's its purpose.

Interesting because 'withholding a belief' may be accurately understood as 'disbelieving'.
Or, at least, this is what the dictionary says.

 

[Willamena]

In which manner did i use special pleading?
Also, how does the way a person define himself/herself is relevant if the definition is wrong/inaccurate?

EDIT: Shadow Wolf is agnostic. Period. The argument is that Shadow Wolf is also atheist.

The agnostic isn't a person, the agnostic is an idea, a concept. It's the idea of "someone who holds..." such and such attitude in regards to the question of god. The definition of agnostic put out denies belief and disbelief in regards to the existence of god, and instead turns focus to the question of god. (That is also the agnostic as I understand it.)

To ignore part of the opponent's argument given to make a case for a portion of it is precisely special pleading. In other words, to say she doesn't believe and ignore that she also doesn't disbelieve does the agnostic injustice. Just because "not believing" is the atheist doesn't make the agnostic the same as the atheist.

The agnostic has put aside the issue of the existence of god in favour of looking at the question and her own ability to answer it.

 

[Willamena]

Interesting because 'withholding a belief' may be accurately understood as 'disbelieving'.
Or, at least, this is what the dictionary says.

You pull out the dictionary, I'm going to run screaming in the opposite direction.
:run:

Better to discuss ideas.

 

[Koldo]

The definition of agnostic put out denies belief and disbelief in regards to the existence of god, and instead turns focus to the question of god. (That is also the agnostic as I understand it.)

The agnostic has put aside the issue of the existence of god in favour of looking at the question and her own ability to answer it.

According to whom?

To ignore part of the opponent's argument given to make a case for a portion of it is precisely special pleading. In other words, to say she doesn't believe and ignore that she also doesn't disbelieve does the agnostic injustice. Just because "not believing" is the atheist doesn't make the agnostic the same as the atheist.

I didn't ignore it.
I mentioned there is no label for 'not disbelieving' in God.
I am using the whole of what she gave to define where she stands in the spectrum. However, it just happens that a part of it serves no purpose in the process. The same happens with other beliefs ( or lack of ) that aren't factored in the process, such as a belief in an specifically *omnipotent* deity, or belief in a *spaghetti* deity.

In an analogy, lions belong to the Family Felidae. As far as categorization of members into a given Family goes, it is unimportant whether lions possess a mane or not.

 

[Koldo]

You pull out the dictionary, I'm going to run screaming in the opposite direction.
:run:

Better to discuss ideas.

Nah, i don't mean to use the dictionary to say that you are wrong.
The intent was just to point out that whether withholding belief and disbelief should be treated as separated is highly debatable. It has more to do with how we organize our ideas/concepts than anything else.

 

[Willamena]

According to whom?

According to whom not?

I didn't ignore it.
I mentioned there is no label for 'not disbelieving' in God.

But that's one way of ignoring it, even unwittingly. Just as the person who 'doesn't believe' is the atheist, the person who doesn't disbelieve is the person who believes... the theist.

To hold a position of 'neither believing nor disbelieving' is a third case. Just as someone cannot be said to be theist and atheist (about existence that is contingent), this agnostic cannot be said to 'either believe or disbelieve.'

I am using the whole of what she gave to define where she stands in the spectrum. However, it just happens that a part of it serves no purpose in the process.

It does in hers. And you're ignoring that it does in hers.

The same happens with other beliefs ( or lack of ) that aren't factored in the process, such as a belief in an specifically *omnipotent* deity, or belief in a *spaghetti* deity.

In an analogy, lions belong to the Family Felidae. As far as categorization of members into a given Family goes, it is unimportant whether lions possess a mane or not.

Sure, if you want to categorize only the atheist.

 

[Koldo]

According to whom not?

According to whom not.

But that's one way of ignoring it, even unwittingly. Just as the person who 'doesn't believe' is the atheist, the person who doesn't disbelieve is the person who believes... the theist.

To hold a position of 'neither believing nor disbelieving' is a third case. Just as someone cannot be said to be theist and atheist (about existence that is contingent), this agnostic cannot be said to 'either believe or disbelieve.'

It all boils down to how one defines disbelief.
A person that doesn't disbelieve is a person who doesn't refuse/reject to believe. An atheist could also fit into this.

It does in hers. And you're ignoring that it does in hers.

Not ignoring. Just clearly stating it doesn't.

Sure, if you want to categorize only the atheist.

Why would i categorize anything else?

 

[Willamena]

An atheist could also fit into this.

Right; but to squeeze the agnostic into it, you will find he doens't fit. Square peg, round hole.

Why would i categorize anything else?

I hear there's a discussion about the agnostic going around.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

EDIT: Shadow Wolf is agnostic. Period. The argument is that Shadow Wolf is also atheist.

I was going to ignore you, but I found this to be quite hysterical. The "argument" is over my believes, even though I am here to offer insight about what I believe. And who knows better what I believe than me. It's also insulting that you are trying to tell me what I believe.
But don't worry, your only being able to read into what you like/agree with and ignore the rest isn't too uncommon. Actually alot of people are prone to only being able to see black and white, this or that, one or the other, and consequently what they don't agree with is subconsciously rejected or ignored.
But still it's quite funny, and a potential sign on some insecurities within your own believes (and not just religious), to be arguing over what someone believes, especially when this person can tell you what s/he believes.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't know about plain agnostics, but us fancy ones definitely don't hold the belief that god(s) exist.

 

[Koldo]

Right; but to squeeze the agnostic into it, you will find he doens't fit. Square peg, round hole.

Fit into what?
Into not refusing/rejecting to believe?

I hear there's a discussion about the agnostic going around.

I heard it was already established Shadow Wolf is agnostic.

 

[Koldo]

I was going to ignore you, but I found this to be quite hysterical. The "argument" is over my believes, even though I am here to offer insight about what I believe. And who knows better what I believe than me. It's also insulting that you are trying to tell me what I believe.
But don't worry, your only being able to read into what you like/agree with and ignore the rest isn't too uncommon. Actually alot of people are prone to only being able to see black and white, this or that, one or the other, and consequently what they don't agree with is subconsciously rejected or ignored.
But still it's quite funny, and a potential sign on some insecurities within your own believes (and not just religious), to be arguing over what someone believes, especially when this person can tell you what s/he believes.

Then you are most likely misunderstanding my position.
I am not telling you what you believe in.
Rather, i am telling you what labels apply to what you say that you believe in.
There is a considerable difference between both cases.

In an analogy, i am not randomly telling you possess a car nor a boat. You are giving me the characteristics of a vehicle and then i tell you whether you possess a car or a boat.
A boat doesn't become a car because the owner decided to think of it as a car.